Bulwark Takes - Katie Couric LIVE on Trump's AWFUL Polls, GOP's Gerrymander Faceplant, WHCD Drama

Episode Date: April 22, 2026

Katie Couric is joining JVL and Bill Kristol to talk about Trump's dismal approval polling, the GOP's failed attempt to gain an edge in the House via gerrymandering, and the upcoming White House Correspondents Dinner.

I think we're live. Are we live? Yeah, we are. We're doing it live. Hi, everyone. Well, happy hump day. This is one of my favorite things to do because I love to talk to really smart people about what's going on in the world. And today, my two smarty pants friends, Bill Crystal and JVL, are going to talk about so many things that are happening in the news. But the headline, I guess you guys, well, there are many headlines.

that's part of the problem. But we're going to be talking about the sentence we never thought we'd hear from Tucker Carlson's mouth, or at least at this point, Trump's poll numbers, the news coming out of the Strait of Hormuz with our Strait of Hormuz expert, JBL, and the Virginia redistricting vote that's going to change everything for Democrats, including voters, I'm not going to say you're Democrat, but voters like Bill Crystal, who lives in the Old Dominion. Anyway, you guys, so I just have to ask you both about Tucker.

Carlson and this midstream conversion where he went on a podcast with his brother Buckley. And of course, his brother's name is Buckley, Buckley and Tucker. And I guess Tucker has a son named Buckley as well after his brother. Meanwhile, I think his brother is definitely using RFK Jr.'s tanning bed, but that's beside the point. Let's listen to what Tucker said. that is really kind of creating huge waves all around the media ecosystem anyway. So let's listen.

Looking back being, because, I mean, you and I and everyone else who supported him, you wrote speeches for him, I campaign for him. I mean, we're implicated in this for sure. Yes. It's not enough to say, well, I changed my mind or like, oh, this is bad. I'm out. It's like in very small ways, but in real ways, you and me and millions of people like. us for the reason this is happening right now yes so I do think it's like a moment to

wrestle with our own consciences you know we'll be tormented by it for a long time I will be and and I want to say I'm sorry for misleading people in it was not intentional that's all I'll say all right were you guys surprised by this admission did I it kind of heard rumblings and it seemed to be headed that way. So I just really want to get your reaction. First, you, Bill. I don't think he's being honest. I don't think he's tormented. I don't think his conscience is bothering him. I think he's happy, supported Trump. He did great in the Trump years. And now he's laying the ground work, I assume, to run maybe himself in 2027, 28, or at least to be a key player on the Republican side. And he realizes

Trump's going to want himself, presumably, or maybe Don Jr. as his air. Then there's Vance, kind of cluttering up the kind of semi-establish mega establishment lane and tucker can be the outsider the anti-israel and anti-everything uh you know radical outsider but he has to sort of separate himself from trump and the way to do it is with an anguish profession of how bad he feels which i don't really believe wow wow you're so cynical but uh what do you think july how do you agree i mean i don't know i mean so i've i've known tucker for a very very long time we we used to be very close friends. We are we are not really anymore. I so I got yelled at by Tim and Sarah talking about this yesterday because I said look isn't this everything we want right? I mean what isn't what we

want from the people who supported Trump for them to stop supporting Trump and to say they were wrong to support him and to then say and I should be accountable for this. Yeah. Like that's Maybe it's insincere. Maybe it's sincere. Maybe it's positioning for something else. One of the things I have struggled with, though, is that so many of Trump's elite-level supporters are totally in bad faith, right? Let's say one thing in private and another thing in public.

It's like, well, I've been desperate to have anybody on that side of the Maga world who actually believes the shit they say. Right? And this is one of the reasons I have such a soft spot for Marjorie Taylor Green. Because Marjorie Taylor Green, however crazy she is, she does believe it. Like she's not in on the joke, you know. And Tucker is actually believing, I mean, he has the courage of his convictions that wars and especially wars involving American alliances with Israel are really, really bad.

And he hates them and he's willing to break with Trump over it. And so like, okay, like one and a half cheers. No, I mean, I'm. Maybe and maybe not. I don't know. Possible he's running. Like I think it's possible he's running too. We could talk about whether or not we think that will work out or not.

Well, let's, you, you, that's, that's, that's a good question. I mean, how, how serious do you think, Bill, this is that he is going to run for president of the United States, Tucker Carlson? And would he have a chance? to get the Republican nomination anyway. He certainly thought about it over the years. He spoke at the Republican Convention at a key spot in 2024. He's been at the White House many times. Everyone thinks about it in that way.

You know, if you're at that level and that fame and he's made a lot of money. And he has a pretty devoted following. I don't know that he will. You might enjoy more being talked about and then trying to help make sure someone he supports gets in. And I don't quarrel with JVL that he sincerely, I guess, is against our, involvement in wars in the Middle East, especially if we're on the side of Israel, you know. So I don't think there's some sincerity there, but I don't think there's a lot of accountability either in the sense that he's not offering to give back anything. So, no, I JVL wrote a piece

a week or two ago about, you know, that it's Trump still the, well, President Trump is still the most likely in my view. Well, I think maybe J. Vail said he was the second most likely to be the nominee in 2028, and his son will be the most likely, but it's basically the same argument that Trump fan, Trump is not letting himself or his family lose the presidency with any, or at least doesn't want to. And I did actually a conversation, you know, like this Katie, with A.B. Stoddard, him, you know, today, which will be up tomorrow, where she really has a, she has a real grasp, I've got to say, of Trump's psyche in a way that I certainly don't. I've never been very interested in the psychological side of Trump. I've just interested in, like, he's just a horrible threat to our democracy and all that.

But she just thinks he could not stand being in the White House in 27, 2028 and watching everyone else run from president. and he's the side show as people go through Iowa and New Hampshire. And he will not hand over the party to anyone except himself or his son. And plus he has practical reasons, the mass of corruption and so forth, that he can't afford to have somebody he doesn't totally trust in there. Plus he loves being president. And he doesn't want to give it up, but he doesn't think he should give it up. But he's talked to himself, who knows what he really believes about the election,

but he doesn't care anyway that the Constitution says you shouldn't have a third term. I was just saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, time out. He can't run. I mean, I know Steve Bannon has said he could. Really? Who's going to stop him? What scenario? What scenario is he gets friendly state chairman?

I'll let JV. L talk. He gets friendly Republican state chairman to put him on the ballot. He gets drafted. So, you know, this is democracy. The 22nd Amendment. It's a little ambiguous anyway, but it wasn't a consecutive term.

And anyway, that was a long time ago. There's a lot of other stuff in the Constitution that's been overtaken by events. I'm not going to stop my people from drafting me. And I don't know, maybe they'll get a case to the Supreme Court. Maybe the Supreme Court will kick him off the ballot. maybe not. Certainly not if they can delay the case of these gotten some votes already from Republican voters and some key states. So I don't know. I worry that he could pull it off.

What do you think, JVL? So I've been ringing this bell now for years. People said I was an insane person. And maybe I am. I mean, you know, I'm open to the possibility. But it would go like this. Trump would say the 22nd Amendment is really about consecutive terms. I didn't have consecutive terms. Also, I was cheated, therefore I'm entitled to this. And the key is that he gets party chairman to get him on the ballot and he gets to a vote before the case gets to the Supreme Court. Because once people have voted in Iowa or in New Hampshire, I think there will be two

votes on the court no matter what to say, yes, he should be allowed. to run. I think it becomes easier to find those other three votes if votes have already been cast. And I would say this just based on what we saw with the 14th Amendment. So, I mean, the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment is as clear as day. And the Supreme Court was absolutely unwilling to enforce it because they thought that that would be getting in the way of democratic legitimacy. They were like, well, there's a remedy. If voters don't want an insurrectionist, they can just not vote for insurrectionists. And so we're going to invent a test here for how this is supposed to work because we don't want to touch it. I think it's a long shot for Trump. Like,

if you were betting money, would the court invalidate the 22nd Amendment to allow them to run? I think you probably want odds on it. But it's not like a million to one shot. But also, what if the court doesn't validate it? I don't think it's 100 percent certain that Donald Trump says, oh, Supreme Court has spoken. Oh, I must get off. So this is a total violation of our democracy. My people want me. Who are these people, unelected people who are betraying me and betraying the voters? I'm running.

Let them stop me. I mean, we can have a jet, right? That's not. But I do think that, so Don Jr., this is my other guy. I wrote about this week. Don Jr., whenever he is included on polling, he's been polling in second place. Like, this is a guy. He's basically invisible.

He's not out campaigning. He's not talking about it. he is an absolutely a viable candidate in a way that like Eric Trump is not. Don Jr. very craftily starting in 2017 while Ivanka Trump was inside the White House trying to do policy and be a grown-up, Don Jr. realized that the path forward within the Trump dynasty was actually just to go out to Fox and become a guy who understands how to play to the president's base. And he's beloved. He's like a mascot for the the Trump lifestyle brand.

And so I think that, again, if Trump feels like he doesn't want to go through the election or feels, you know, he's talked into believing, well, it's really too much of a long shot. The way to do it is you use Don. And the upside for that is if Don wins the nomination but loses the general election, you then preserve four more years of sort of graft and bribery for the, Trump family, because for four more years after that, Don is the presumed frontrunner for 2032. And all of this is about preserving access to... You're saying...

I'm just... Just follow the logic of it. The Center for American Progress... Two billion dollars. I'm going to go get sick. I'll be right back. Okay. Center for American Progress keeps track of the, like, the outright gifts, not the pay, not the increase in paper value of, like, Trump's, you know, fake media company and stuff,

but the actual number of dollars that he has gotten. And since, I think it's since December before he was inaugurated, they've pocketed a little more than $2 billion, the Trump family has. This is very real money. JBL, some people are saying $4 billion. Yeah, well, that's when you do all the other, the paper, right. So this is what I'm saying, like, it's probably more than that. But the lowest, like the most conservative estimate is $2 billion.

And that's so far, we've got another two and a half years. And so if you're them, you look at this. And this is all because, you know, people, especially foreign governments, know that it is valuable to have a line into the White House, especially in the White House for sale. Why would they give that up? If you're the Trump family, like, is there anything in our history with these people that suggest that they would voluntarily give up access to vast flows of money? I want to and we'll talk like if this were to come if this were to come to pass you know right now he is not very popular right I mean it's a long way to 2028 we'll talk about his poll numbers in a moment but I wanted to ask you guys about the whole Tucker Carlson defection you know I'm curious because you all sort of occupied this world at one point what is happening to to sort of the conservatives or, you know, right-wing media, right-wing supporters, whether you're talking about Marjorie Taylor Green, Megan Kelly, Alex Jones, Candice Owens,

you know, all these people who are kind of abandoning Donald Trump. And meanwhile, you have Ben Shapiro right on the other side. And is this bill all about Israel? I think a lot of it is about Israel. Well, some of it's about his poll numbers going down and people thinking, I'm not so sure my future I need to be quite as yoked to him as I thought. Some of it is about, I guess, you know, actual foreign policy issues or just personal insults and so forth. It's hard to tell. I mean, these movements, these autocratic movements are often unstable.

I mean, we think of them as being, you know, very well organized. And some people like Orban's was pretty well organized for quite a while in Hungary. But a lot of them are just chaotic. There's a whole bunch of, you know, people who want to be the big shot who then get. and fights with other people who want to be the heir or the successor or the number one grafter as opposed to the number three, you know, grafter. And so this is what happens in a movement like this, especially when Trump's getting a little old, the succession's uncertain, his numbers are going down, and so people are jockeying for positions. So I think some of it's sincere in terms of issues,

and a lot of it is what happens to an autocratic movement, which makes it a little weaker, but also in some ways more dangerous, right, because parts of it get radicalized, and people, people start making a bid to, I'm the true heir, because I really want to just crush the left and send the troops in. And I'm for martial law in mid-2020. You know, one of them's gonna stand up in mid-2020 and say, we can't afford to have this election,

the Democrats are traders, and they might win. So we need martial law. And then suddenly that person is, you know, the heir of some part of the Trump policy. So I've been a little radicalized by JVL and by talking to A.B. Stoddard and just thinking about, I just psychologically, Donald Trump, he loves being president.

It's the best thing he's ever done. It satisfies, to the degree anything can, his incredible need and narcissism and megalomania and all these things. And I guess the more I've thought about it, actually, JVL was very early on this. I was close to him, but I wasn't quite there. But the more I've thought about it, the more struck I am, that they are not giving this up, not only not easily, but without quite a big struggle, whether it's a struggle for the nomination or a struggle even after the nomination, third party kind of craziness, right?

That's not impossible. or a struggle not to have a free and fair election, I just think for me, that's key here. Let me ask you both. Yeah, can I ask you guys both this question because I am curious about it. There is a sizable elite media defection away from Trump, right?

I mean, people like Tucker, people like Alex Jones, people like, which I'm sorry, are now the elite media when it comes to the Republican Party. Megan Kelly. Megan Kelly and, yeah, as backing away. But we are not seeing that mirrored in his poll approval numbers with Republican voters.

He's had some erosion with Republican voters. And like it's real. You can see it. But it's still reasonably small. I think he's low 80s approval with, you know, generic public. He has, I forget, there's one filter they use where he's like, I have 100% approval from MAGA, you know, which is like a screen of if you have a Donald Trump tattoo on your face, do you approve of the. president. And with those people, he's 100%. But his

standing with Republicans is still quite secure. And I look at this and I do wonder if you are in the MAGA media space and you're Tucker, Candice is a special case, I think, because she is sort of

more of a mainstream type person who's like her audience seems to be more crankish than purely political. But if you're purely MAGA politics, Are their audiences going to stay with these guys? If they, I mean, if Tucker and Megan Kelly and Alex Jones, like, really do go full anti-Trump, you know, like, true Trumpism has never been tried, even if they do it from the right, will their audiences stay with them? I don't, I don't know that that's a foregone conclusion and we're going to see.

But that's my question for you guys. Like, where do you think the actual people are going to be on this? Well, I mean, doesn't it take a while, Bill, to have a trickle-down effect? I mean, polls usually lag sort of what's happening in current events. So I would be on the lookout, honestly, you know, with the war in Iran, with Tucker Carlson, with some of these people, with the fight with the Pope, with the language that Trump has been using on true social. I wouldn't be surprised, what the hell do I know you guys? but if we started to see, if we started to see some erosion

among Republicans for Trump. I mean, I just don't think it's, I think it's going to have an impact. I don't think it's going to be a non-starter. I just think it takes a while for this. And Tucker just said this yesterday, right? So, you know, I don't know whether their audiences will stay with them.

I'm not sure. I think they are connected. They have this parosocial relationship with them. And I think they, they feel a sense of loyalty. So I don't know what's going to happen to the audience, but I wouldn't be surprised if this didn't impact Republican voters. What do you think, Bill?

Yeah, Bill, is this like January 6th? Because remember, after January 6th, Fox got a little squirrely and started trying to back away from Trump. And the numbers dropped out. Right. Right. And their numbers dropped out, and they pivoted back hard into, No, no, got to be on Team Trump here.

I don't know, obviously. And I mean, so much depends on what happens in the real world. We have a real recession because of the tariffs and because of the war. I think that's a very different world than, you know, where the economy chugs along adequately. And he backs out of the war without too much damage or too much obvious damage and so forth. So I really, I think it's very hard to say. I agree with Katie that, you know, there is this kind of trickle-down or delayed effect often. But I also just say, you know, those 82 percent of the Republicans or whatever, they're still thinking, they're still with Trump.

48% people here in Virginia were still with, you know, okay with the Republicans. I mean, it's a little complicated instead of the redistricting and stuff like that, but basically they weren't, they didn't feel strongly enough to desert Trump. The Republicans stuck with them. So the party loyalty remains very strong. And look, these people are influential, but how influential? 77 million people voted for Trump. What does Tucker get to?

Three million, four million people. Maybe another one, two or three million for Alex Jones. You could have an authoritarian movement that has 10 million people who were, quote, true believers who are very upset that Trump is not coming through on key things. But the other 60 or 70 million are still like, you know what? He's fighting the left and the economy. This is where it does depend on reality. He was helped so much by the economy being pretty good or feeling like it was pretty good

or he was able to convince people was pretty good for most of his first term and then managed to blame the last year on COVID. That I think is really crucial. The reality will matter for some chunk of those voters out there. But Bill, we're so hot right now. America's the hottest country ever. Didn't you? Everybody's talking about how hot we are.

Very hot. Can we talk about Iran and what is going on there, you guys? You know, whether it's Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan of the New York Times or this article in the Wall Street Journal behind Trump's public bravado on the war, he grapples with his own fears. I'm curious. I mean, just give me. your perspective on what is happening with this war, because honestly, I've been following it-ish, and I'm just, I'm so confused.

Bill? I mean, he got into it, but he thought it would be Venezuela again. I think it's pretty clear from what we've- Right. From evidence. He thought it'd be quick and easy, and he liked, he loved, you know, he was against foreign intervention

and then it turned out it's kind of great to be a big guy in the world stage. You always like being a big guy on the world stage. He was never truly an America first person. It was like, I don't care. He wanted to be a big shot. Then it turned out using that military with Hegsseth there and sort of he could race the military anyway, Mattis and Esper really wouldn't let him do in the first term, you know. He gets to be the guy with the military.

That goes way back in Trump. So personal life, he didn't serve, obviously. But, you know, he always had that kind of fetishistic, fascistic, if we could be honest, you know, love of sort of a cartoon version of the military, right? So he loved all that and he thought this would be Venezuela. Then he was shocked that it wasn't. He should have stopped it, obviously, gotten out after three days and declared victory, but he didn't. Then the straight-of-war moves got closed pretty quickly, and suddenly it's like reality, and the other side gets a vote, and the economy starts to get affected. Then the bombing is supposed to bring them to their knees, but it didn't, and then it turns out they have some more assets.

It's not so easy to even get the ceasefire and wiggle out that way because Iran now feels its oats a little bit, and they're deciding to make Trump pay a price, and they want to remind everyone that they can control the straight one they want to. I still think we get it ends, I still think we get a ceasefire. We get something like what people are now expecting, which is sort of a fake deal where Trump has some ability to say that he, I don't know, has some guarantee that the nuclear program is set back a bit. And they have destroyed a fair amount of Iranian missiles and killed a lot of Iranian leaders and a lot of Iranian people. But at the end of the day, the Iranian regime is there.

And it's a big, huge defeat for us, I believe in terms of the world as a whole, our alliance structure, the Middle East, reliability of the U.S., not keeping the straight, abandoning the principle of freedom of the seas and so forth. But Trump maybe can wiggle out of it. I don't know. It's hard for me to, and obviously, but with final point, though, you made the point about the journal, the journal piece in particular was striking, the account of how the senior military officials kept Trump out of key meetings out of a key operational meeting when they were rescuing the airmen because they thought he was so erratic. They didn't want him there reacting to every little thing. I mean, that, I don't know. I wonder how much internally they really are worried about

him and whether that affects the military's willingness to do things that they've sort of swallowed hard but gone along with blowing up these boats without any evidence that the people on them are actually enemy combatants. And even if they are smuggling drugs, that doesn't move. We can just blow them up. But they went along with that. They went along with this war. General Kane is swallowing hard and going along with standing next to Pete Hicks out there at the Pentagon. I don't know. I wonder what's going on internally after this. But I guess my, my instinct I could totally be wrong is that this war kind of comes to a end that Trump gets to bloviate about and gets to get out of it basically but final point I believe

that his one lesson would be a normal person's lesson would be you maybe I was right about staying out of these Middle East wars and kind of staying out of wars and I'll go back to you know demagoguing immigration and being you know and making money and you know but I don't think so I think in that respect he's had a taste of the blood and I think Cuba of Greenland I think he wants us he wants foreign adventures, and especially if his poll numbers are going down, he thinks that's the way to do it. So I'm very worried that we're going to have more illegal and unconstitutional wars

led by a commander-in-chief who's erratic and totally reckless and irresponsible, and maybe with, unfortunately, senior aides and maybe even the military going along with more stuff than they should. Even if it costs him significant support among Republican voters? Well, but Cuba will be popular. You know, if he can do it like Venezuela, it'll be. at least mildly popular. It didn't. But I think at this point he's not thinking about voters. I mean, he's, you know, he's sort of beyond that in a way. He's not calculating, am I gaining

2% of losing 2%. He's got an image of himself in his mind. It has to do with the triumphal arch and the ballroom and the whole, everything like that. Vaguely, he assumes that if he can pull all this off by 2028, he can convince everyone that we're the hottest country in the world and that we're great. If you can't pull it off, who knows, then he might have to try a coup or he'll just take the money and run and go to Saudi Arabia or something. But, but he, or I guess they here, but he, you know, I don't think the normal political kind of constraints are working quite the way they would with every other president we've seen. But don't you think that so many people at the Pentagon feel, I mean, I used to cover the Pentagon back in the day and I talk to a lot

of Pentagon reporters, but you have to think, well, you know, he fires the Secretary of the Army and you've got to imagine there's so much of the leadership that is going, holy shit, what is going on with this guy from the stuff he posts on true social to his impulsivity when it comes to actually, you know, starting this war in the first place without really weighing, you know, all the different potential outcomes and, you know, not even really considering the economic impact of closing the street of Fort Moumouse. I mean, you've got to. imagine most military people who are obviously real patriots understand military strategy care deeply about sort of the code of conduct right about the military they have to be shaking their heads and saying this is insanity don't you think i mean and they've got pete hexath you know waging this holy war and quoting pulp fiction and you know what what are they going to do i mean they must i would love to be a fly on the wall. Now they won't even let journalists be flies on the walls at the Pentagon. But I would love to really get an honest appraisal of him as commander and chief from

career military people who've got to be super alarmed about the way he's prosecuting this war and conducting himself. I'm not just saying one quick thing. And then I want to hear from JVL. I mean, I've heard this with people too who are in or near the Pentagon that there are a lot of these old senior general officers were very unhappy and all. And the other, the civilian control of the military is deeply ingrained. They've spent 30 years being taught this. It's a good thing for this country, 95% of the time that they believe deeply in the civilian control of the military.

I think it's really led them, though, not to push back as much as some of them might have. And a lot of people have been fired. And a lot of other people have been intimidated. And a lot of people, you know, it's not so easy to give up after 28 years and you're on the cusp of a real, really high position in the military just to sort of walk away. And they have, in that respect, Trump and Higgs-Seth have been smart in all the firings and stuff. So, and they're promoting people who are more susceptible to their view of the world. So I think it's a mixed bag.

I know, I think there's a lot of unhappy. I think if he tries to do Cuba or Greenland, we could have a genuine constitutional crisis. We could have, you know, the entire Joint Chiefs say, I'm sorry, we're not doing that. We're resigning. And the next tier could then resign. And then Trump promotes, you know, Heg-Seth promotes it one star to be, you know, a four-star. I'm making this up. But you know what I mean?

You could have a genuine, I think it's such an. I agree with your instinct, Katie, which is it's a very unstable. Beneaths sort of surface, it's a very unstable situation. JVL, what do you think? We did have the military push back against Trump for the first time last week. So, I mean, Trump announced that, you know, he announced on truth social. He said, we are closing the strait of our moves or blocking the straight of hormones. That would have been a violation of international law.

And so a lot of people are like, we're depressive. We're doing what now? Hold on. How? We're not allowed to do that. And sent com waited, I think it was two days or three days. And then sentcom finally clarified. No, no, no, no. We're blockading Iranian ports. We are not blockading the strait. You can blockade ports of a belligerent country as an act of war. It's not a special military operation, though. It is an act of actual, the legal definition of war. And that's what we're doing. And Trump has continued. to say publicly that we're blockading the straight, but we're not. Like, it's this weird, and maybe it's like a distinction without a difference to most people, but it does seem to be important to me that the military has said, the president can say that we're blockading whatever he wants to, but that would be illegal and we're not doing that. We're blocking the ports of Iran.

And I heard second hand that the Jags, insanely, whose rags have been decimated by Trump, and he's getting more, so he's got a few friendly ones probably, least even so they took targets off the list that Trump and HECSeth wanted for the bridges and the electric power and so forth, the stuff that really was civilian or primarily civilian. Now, presumably Trump isn't going over that list. So I think there is a little, I agree, there is more pushback. It's just hard to know if that ever breaks through to someone emerge who's kind of a leader who's, you know, a Mark Millie type.

Mark Millie in 2020, he was willing to, in December of 2020, when Trump was plotting his coup and getting ready, you know, trying to do what we saw the visible side of in January 6th. Mark Millie was privately talking, and this has been reported, to former Secretary's offense and to others about what do we do? What do we do if he really tries to call out the troops here and stay in the White House? And I don't know that, I don't think Kane is probably quite doing that, but you don't know what's happening. But it didn't get much, any press at the time, I don't think. So these things, these guys can't act discreetly. And I think, but I think they're anguished a lot of them. They really do believe in civilian

in control. They really don't. They feel like they can do some good by staying there, which I don't disagree with. They feel that this is their institution. They've devoted their whole life to it from age 21. I mean, it's, you know, what the military is like, Katie. It's different from, you know, our world. I mean, this is what they've spent their lives doing and the idea of, you know, we need to preserve it. We need to defend it. If we could get through these next two and a half years, you know, we'll give it over to the next president in a responsible way. And we have to kind of, you know, bite hard and just suck it up here when this jackass heck-ass does this thing for now and we'll call it the Department of War for a while.

And I mean, I don't, I think there's a lot of anguish over there, though. Bill, on my theory, and I'm curious what do you think about this, is that the unbelievable ineptitude as a strategic level in this war must have hurt Trump's standing among senior officers. And even senior officers who might have been inclined to be with, they don't like the woke stuff, you know, They, they, they, they, they're, they're not Trumpy, but they don't like the DEI. They must have watched.

I mean, they're watching the same things we are, but more of it and closer up. And the erratic prosecution of this war and the unbelievable, just, you know, tackling and blocking stupidity at the strategic level from the president, the commander of chief, that must be making an impression on them, don't you think? Yeah, I think so. Yeah. So in a weird way, I think that makes us a little safer. Like I think the senior ranks of the military that the experience of this war has probably anybody who might have been inclined to go along with a strong man, I think probably has second thoughts of it, having watched just again, even the ceasefire, the on again off again, right?

You know, so Trump gets the ceasefire, which is a huge. giveaway to Iran. It was always going to have to be a huge giveaway to Iran. There was no avoiding it. And instead of just taking his medicine and getting the deal done, he went and tried to renegotiate it. And so the ceasefire falls apart. We're going to have to now renegotiate it. And we will renegotiate it, but it'll be on terms that are worse for us than it would have been 10 days ago, 11 days ago. And so I agree with you, Bill. I think the ultimate end of this is not escalation, but we get to some sort of deal. And the Iranians wind up just strategically much more secure. They become, they go from being a pariah state to being a middle power. And they have become incredibly

useful to China. China through their relationship with Iran will now control the Strait of Hormuz and control the flow of all oil to that hemisphere and that side of the world, which enhances China's power over its neighbors. Isn't it, isn't it going to inspire them to, to build up their nuclear capability, you know, it might have the, you know, the opposite effect of what everybody is sort of... Yeah, I think it'll be hard to stop. I really do think it's going to, over the long term, it is going to be very, very difficult to stop the...

I mean, I'd say the only counter, yeah, I mean, Israel's going to try to stop it, and they're pretty good at it, I'd say, or at least delay it. And secondly, it is an unstable regime. So I think my only caveat to the way you put at JVIL is that that assumes it's kind of a stable middle power that's growing. you know, kind of India or something, becoming stronger as it moves forward. But it's kind of a mess. And so I really, it could blow up at all kinds of different ways.

That could be even more dangerous, incidentally. I mean, you could have a lot of chaos in the Middle East. I mean, who knows what the world's going to look like six months or now. But I agree. China's been a big winner. Russia is something of a winner, though, again, that country's such a mess that Ukraine is doing so well now. So it seems like that Putin must be both, it's both very strong, but also weak underneath. it's a very chaotic and uncertain world.

The one thing we know is that the 80 years of the U.S. being a fairly reliable anchor of the post-World War to order, both in terms of economics, but also geopolitics and strategy and security, that's over, I think. And I think it's, God knows what. And would you agree that there's not going back to that bill? Yeah. I mean, I don't think there are ways to reconstruct a version of it, I would say, maybe the next president, but very hard to go back. I was going to different leadership. Do you think that any of these?

I would, I think they can be repaired with different leadership, but I think it all depends on who's in charge and, you know, how reliable that partner is. But so let me try to talk you out of that, Katie. Very specific, this NATO alienation. So I would try to talk you out of it by saying that maybe after Trump won, the rest of the world could have said, yeah, okay, well, everybody can screw up once. the Americans didn't understand what they were doing. But we did it twice now. And I feel like if you're doing long-range strategic planning for your country, no matter who you are, whether you're Japan or South Korea,

or you are an EU country or, hell, if you're the Chinese, right, trying to figure out what you're going to do, you can't make your plans on the hope that America won't do it a third time, right? I mean, this is, what's the line? there's some French minister who's like, you know, our security cannot be hostage to 40,000 people in Wisconsin every four years. And that's right. Like this is a problem of the American people.

This is a problem of what America is and who America is. And we've proven ourselves unreliable. And the rest of the world can't unsee that. Yeah. I mean, the only thing we have going is it's not so easy for them to liberate themselves from us in terms of their security. And so they'll go slow and they are going slow in doing that. They're doing it.

We're doing it. but they're doing it carefully and trying to keep NATO going as long as it can. And, and suddenly, I very much agree that JVL made a point in passing quickly, which I think is important to dwell on. Think if Iran had gone very well for Trump and think if Orban had won. Then you're in a world, I think, where the pro-NATO forces in Europe, it's not like Europe doesn't have Trumpy movements in France, in Germany, and so forth. Trumpy is a little, I don't know what, that'll come from Trump.

but they're analogous to Trump, they would be incredibly strong. I think Orban's defeat plus Trump's in effect defeat in Iran has been very good, actually, in the sense of if you're now a centrist European, pro-democracy European, you think, you know what, maybe not all the wind is, and also the fact that Ukraine is doing okay, maybe the wind isn't entirely at their back. And maybe it actually strengthens Katie's point a little that, you know, maybe they think, okay, maybe we can make it through these next two and a half years. Zelensky hangs on, places like Hungary, you know, we get momentum in a good way in Central Europe

and the Americans come to their senses. But I agree, doing it twice was a very big mistake with the American people. And I ask you guys about just a couple areas I want to cover before we wrap tonight. You know, you were talking about poll numbers and the Republican Party still kind of staying behind Trump. But I wanted to read some of these Reuters, Ipso's poll numbers. His approval rating remains at 36% with 62% disapproving. Majority of Americans, including some Republicans, questioning his temperament.

The poll showed many Americans, including some members of Trump's part, Republican Party have some concerns about the 79-year-old's temperament and mental sharpness following a series of explosive outburst. I'm assuming they're talking about true social. Some 51% of Americans, including 14% of Republicans, of Republicans, 54% of independence and 85% of Democrats said Trump's mental sharpness has gotten worse over the past year. You have Jamie Raskin wanting to invoke the 20th Amendment.

Talk about the poll numbers and what you're seeing here and the erosion of support and sort of this skepticism and concern about his mental, about his faculties, really. They're bad. I mean, they're getting close to Nixon levels now in 74. And it was one poll, amazingly, that showed a majority of Americans want Trump to be impeached and removed from office, including quite a number of Republicans. If those Republicans are thinking they're kind of semi-normy Republicans or even MAGA Republicans who aren't personally in the Trump cult, they're just thinking, well, why don't we just get J.D. Vance in there? And we have much saner MAGA-ish Republican-ish administration. It's not a crazy few, you know. So I think Trump's personal hold on the party has admitted some. Anyway, no, I think his numbers are bad. And we'll see if they keep going down or not. And I do think it bodes poorly for the Republicans in the midterm election. So, yeah, no, it's pretty striking.

I mean, the public, in this respect, I think the public erosion, it's been slow and frustratingly slow for some of us. And it's a point a month or if that even from what is about a point a month now, actually, we think about it. 15 months. He's been in office. He's gone from 50 to not really quite to 35, probably in most polls, but certainly 38-ish, I'd say. So if that keeps going, then you really are at Nixon levels. And then you, I think these things go slowly until they go quickly. And I don't know what point.

It has not broken his hold on the hill. Mike Johnson and the House Republicans pretty much do what he wants, four of them dessert, six of them dessert. It's a headline. They pass something, but, you know, it's tiny. Same with on the Senate side. I don't know. This is where I think the Congress.

combination of the poll numbers going down and maybe a slowing economy and maybe a pretty visible defeat in Iran, we could hit something like a tipping point, I suppose. What do you think, JVL? I don't know. So the most interesting number I saw was yesterday. Bloomberg had the spot inflation on food and it was up. I'm just going to pull it up, make sure I don't get the number, 7.9% year over year for the month of March. sits almost 8% food food prices. That will show up soon in the rest of the numbers.

So on the one hand, yes, I could see us maybe hitting a tipping point. On the other hand, I did make this mistake in Trump 1. So I had thought about this time in 2018, he's going to get wiped out in the midterms. and that is going to be the Republican Party's moment to abandon him. They'll say, we tried this experiment. It was a failure. We've got to watch this guy stink off of us, and we've got to get rid of him and move on.

And the opposite happened, right? The 2018 midterms were a tipping point, and they were the tipping point at which the institutional Republican Party went from being conditionally with Trump to being fully on board all in, no matter what, with Trump. Why? Why wouldn't? I mean, I don't know.

But they held the Senate. That was very important. Remember, they had that rally at the end with the confirmation of Kavanaugh and stuff. They may hold the Senate this time, too. That's why the Senate is the most important election in this fall. I agree. If they hold the Senate.

Why didn't that happen? If they hold the Senate, it could happen. I think if he loses both houses, it's a side to do it. But I think it's still more likely than not. It's more likely than not that if whoever, put it this way, do you not agree that if whoever Donald Trump endorses for president in 2028, let's just leave aside whether it's himself,

or Don Jr. Or maybe it is Vance. Maybe he goes more in a way, JVIL. And I don't think. Or Rubio. Whoever he endorses is very likely to be the Republican nominee.

Yes. Yeah, Trump restilled them up. So in that respect, I don't expect a desertion of Republican office holders from Trump. Whether in the public, there's appreciable erosion,

but also, and this is something, Katie, you know a ton about the media side of it and also some of the big private sector institutions, businesses, they are not deserting Trump yet. For me, that's really astonishing,

right i mean the public whatever you think of the public they've gone from 50% to 38 percent elite businesses elite law firms they haven't gone anywhere there's there's zero deserve they and look they have practical reasons you're running a big company you got to get along with the trump administration they want a merger approved bill right they want a merger approved they want this they want that trump is so the ruthless exercise of the levers of power of the executive branch has stood has done well trump has done well by that and he's not and he's not relenting on that quite the the contrary justice department more aggressive than ever and going after everyone the more shameless

than the merger stuff right i mean so i think that gives him an awful lot of power for a awful long time could that eventually break sure but i i think that that that makes it stickier than just a pure you know public opinion referendum right what about jd vance you guys i mean has his standing gone down significantly people are talking about you know the campaigning for orban and And, you know, taking on the Pope and saying the Pope, you know, doesn't understand theology. And now Dick Cheney, according to one poll, is more popular than J.D. Vance, which made me smile when I knew I was talking to you, Bill. So I'm curious, I'm curious if you all feel that J.D. Vance has, his star is falling a little bit. And if it's, you know, if it's just a temporary thing.

Javier, what do you think? Is there anybody more loathsome in American politics than J.D. Vance? I don't think there is, honestly. I would take Donald Trump over J.D. Vance. I'd probably take Nick Fuentes over J.D. Vance. Because, again, these people authentically believe whatever they believe, at least. You could say that. J.D. is just, who knows? He's a horrific shape-shifter.

I would say this. I do not. I think J.D. Vance's life has become difficult because he saw himself as the bridge. who could hold the far-right America firsters together with the more traditional Republican types. And like with Tucker breaking up with Trump, that puts J.D. in a very awkward spot. Trump, Tucker's son who was working for J.D. has left J.D.'s office. That strikes me as probably meaningful. On the other hand, J.D. was always playing an inside game.

Jady has never had popular support for anything, right? His entire life has been being a supplicant to people with more power and getting them to give him things. It started with Amy Choir and then it became Peter Thiel and then it became Donald Trump. And in order for him to go to the next rung, which is to become president, he was going to need somebody else to bless him and give him that nomination. He was never going to be able to put together the popular support to go out and win a primary election on his own. And so for him, it really is about persuading Trump not to run, persuading, it was persuading Tucker not to run and persuading Don Jr. not to run. And so if those three were out and Trump played hands on him, then he could be the nominee and he would just roll the dice in general election. You know, maybe you win, maybe you don't.

It depends on a lot of external factors. I don't think that has changed. Like his life is more uncomfortable. He is in a more ludicrous position publicly, but he's always been in a lucrous position. I mean, he is a laughing stock and has been among serious people for many, many years at this point. It's just a little more so. But strategically, it hasn't changed what he needs to happen in order to wind up becoming president someday. Because he was never going to be able to command a popular movement on his own.

That's my deal. I don't know, Bill. Yeah, mostly, I think that's a good analysis. I mean, just wouldn't, it sort of depends. Are we in normal politics or are we in post-normal politics? In normal politics, an incumbent, if incumbent vice presidents, you usually get the nomination if they want it. I mean, George H.W. Bush had a rough beginning of the second term with Reagan.

The Reagan eyes didn't like him, but the people who were anti-Ragan didn't quite like him, and he was a wimp because he was going along with Reagan. And then, you know, at the end of the day, Reagan sort of blessed him. And anyway, he won a couple of key primaries, defeated Dole and Kemp and got the nomination. And then he won Reagan's third term, as it were. And I mean, I like George H. W. Bush. I'm not being denigating him here. I just, that was the practical realities of it.

And maybe we're people I know who were more traditional, you know, think this is at the end of the day, the rules of politics come back. Trump was weird. But, you know, Vance probably is the nominee because he bridges the sort of normy-ish establishment, such as it is and MAGA. But I don't know. I don't know. The other thing is on this whole poll thing, I mean, the degree to which these tech grows, but generally the Republican billionaires are powerful is really something. We haven't really seen this at a long time in American politics.

And it's not true in the Democratic Party. They have plenty of billionaires. And I know some of them and some of them have some power. But they're not actually very powerful. They don't think the same way. They don't even think they should. They think they should support someone they like. And, of course, they should, like, nudge them to do certain things.

It probably means that the party is more. more pro-AI than it should be because some of their big donors are pro-AI and so forth, that it should be politically at least, and I think substantively too. But it doesn't, the Republican billionaires have a totally different attitude, especially the MAGA-ish billionaires and the tech billionaires. And so I don't know, when we talk about the Republican Party, are we talking about voters? Are we talking about 50 unbelievable heavyweights and what they decide? You know, it's not quite a normal political party in the way we think of it, I think.

that's depressing and you're talking that's us man you know get someone cheerful get someone cheerful on next week and mark Zuckerberg's and talking about that cohort yeah and Peter Thiel Elon Musk right yeah Mark Andreessen I mean you have a bunch of these like very weird guys they've internalized it you know they they love the power I think that's another thing that at everyone likes being flattered and cordial and stuff, and I did it a little bit when I was in politics and in government, you know, and stuff, you're nice to these people who are powerful. But the Republican stuff, it's sort of out of control. And the mag of stuff and the gloring in it, the conspicuous consumption, to say the least.

There's a good piece about Bezos, wasn't there? I saw this somewhere. I haven't really read all of it. But, you know, what he was like in my newsletter. Okay, what it was like in 2018 as opposed to now, someone who went to a, yeah, and that he was still like a normal. Wasn't that? Yeah, it was in the Atlantic.

Yeah, it was like he was a normal rich person. I mean, he was kind of, but it was a normal. And now it's just a different planet. I really feel that one. He went to his, like, weekend or his, you know, whatever kind of conference he had. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, that was a funny article. And then his wife broke her wrist, right?

Yeah, and he and his kids got foot mouth and mouth disease. Yeah, basically walked away when he told him what had happened to his wife. Like, not one scintilla of empathy, just kind of basically. like, yep. Okay, see, it was a, it was weird. All right, we got a couple more things just to cover, and then I'm going to let you guys go. But let's talk about my home state of Virginia. Bill, you live in Northern Virginia, right? Right. Okay, so this redistricting, just as we were going to go live, a Virginia judge blocked the state from certifying the results of Tuesday's congressional map referendum, deeming the referendum and the bill that triggered it as unconstitutional,

according to the judge's order issued Wednesday. Virginia's current attorney general, J. Jones confirmed that his office would appeal the decision. Why don't you just review what happened, Bill, yesterday in Virginia, and obviously it's all a part of this tip-per-tat redistricting battle that started in Texas and then in California and then Republicans followed suit in North Carolina and other states. And so now Virginia got a lot more congressional districts that would favor the Democrats. Right. In Virginia, there was a constitutional amendment actually in 2020 that established a nonpartisan commission to do this. And it passed by two to one, and I remember voting for it. And they actually did a good job. And they set up their 11 districts. They split six to five in the most recent election, Democratic of Republican, which is kind of the split of the state, you know. And the districts were contiguous and tried to keep communities together. They had various like political science criteria. They tried to follow these. They were actually literally political scientists and those types who were very these districts under the supervision of the legislature and the court. But once Texas and other already gerrymanded state legislatures decided we're going to follow

of Trump's wishes and gerrymander further gerrymander our congressional delegation, Newsom in California said no, no, no, no. In the middle of a cycle, we should say. In the middle of a cycle where it doesn't, that's supposed to happen. California went there. California also had to go to the, because these being democratic states, they have some, they actually had movements in the last decade or two to try to go to. nonpartisan redistricting, this is a good idea, in fact, in principle. And so Newsom had to went to the ballot in November. They won easily, and they're redistricting.

A similar situation in Virginia, you have to get a popular vote. Here it was closer, considerably closer. For a couple of reasons, I mean, it was just that people would prefer not to have these districts gerrymandered the way they're going to be. They are a little weird. They go all the way from, you know, northern Virginia, all the way 75 miles down to central Virginia in order to create the most Republican, distribute the voters most efficiently. A lot of voters in central Virginia, actually, weren't real happy being shoved into districts

where they're going to be a minority of the district. The representatives, most of the districts in Northern Virginia in terms of population, the representatives likely to be from Northern Virginia. And so there was, I think Democrats, the pro-referendum people lost a little vote, some votes down there, you know, Charlottesville in that area, which you know, well, a little, didn't turn out as well for the Democrat for the referendum as they might have. But Northern Virginia came out big and it passed by about three and a half points. I think the courts will ultimately uphold it.

I think it will move three or four seats. It will help mean the whole redistricting thing that Trump launched almost a year ago will end up being a net wash. For me, the biggest story is the Democrats swallowed hard. They didn't like doing this. They like non-partisan redistricting. I give them credit for liking it. Incidentally, I think it's a good sign for the political, the pro-democracy political movement

that it was reluctant to do this in a way, you know. But they did it, which is also a good sign. You cannot sit on your hands and sort of ring your hands while the other party just goes about ruthlessly, you know, changing the rules in the middle of the cycle, as you said. So that's where we are. And I think we'll end up with more Democratic representatives from Virginia.

Final point, the referendum was temporary. I mean, it changes the situation for four years. And then we go back in 2030 to a nonpartisan commission. So I think it's a reasonable way to deal with it on the part of the, on the part of Virginia. Didn't Eric Holder do a whole thing where they tried to pass legislation

that prohibited gerrymandering? The House Democrats voted for legislation that would have prohibited the kind of gerrymandering we've seen. There's some issues about whether the federal government can actually do that, but Congress probably could actually. The President can't do it by himself, just like with mail-in ballots and all that.

That passed the House literally in 2021, in the Biden years. It didn't have 60 votes in the Senate. And the Republicans were against it. So it's distant, the Democrats, whatever one thinks of, you know, there's a little bit of, I don't know, changing views here or accommodating to reality is what I would say, which is a reasonable thing to do if you're a political party. But to be fair to them, they passed this legislation when they had the majority in the House in 2021. And they say they will pass it again if they get the White House and the Congress. So I think they've, but I give them credit. Look, I mean, Joe Vial has a good piece today which she should talk about, urging them to, you know,

go further as it were, but I give them credit for people think the Democrats are hapless, they won't fight. What if Robert Frost say, a liberalist, someone who won't take his own side in a fight, and I think on this redistricting thing, which was a big, you know, card that Trump and the Republicans played, the Democrats stepped up. I think that's very important. The bottom line, you guys, is, after all is said and done, it's a wash, right? But it would have been catastrophic for the Democrats if they hadn't played the game. Yeah, it would have been bad for them in terms of numbers. And I think also psychologically, I think it would have been devastating. JVL. Talk about the piece you wrote today. That was excellent.

Look, unilateral disarmament is not a path to peace, right? I mean, and so when you have an illiberal party trying to displace American democratic liberalism, saying we in our states where we believe in liberal democracy are going to try to do good government and we will not gerrymander. And if, you know, we're just two wrongs. Don't make it right. We're not going to do that. That is not helpful for the cause of liberalism long term. You have to have deterrence. And I give Democrats a great deal of credit for the way, as Bill said, this, this referendum in Virginia is sunset in four years. This is a proportional response to Republican illiberal aggression. And Democrats, as Bill said, they passed in 2021 at the federal level. If Republicans,

Republicans don't like this, they should join the Democrats to pass a national ban on this practice, which would be good for America. I agree. And finally, are you guys going to the, neither of you will be at the White House Correspondence Dinner? I'm sorry. Never again. I haven't been a while. Have you been? Do you go usually, Katie, or no?

No, I haven't been for, I mean, I wouldn't go unless I were with a network. I think the last time I went, I think Yahoo News. who bought a table and I went with them. But after that, no, I haven't been because, I mean, sort of I'm an independent purpose now. So who would I go with? Well, the bowl will be- Someone would take you.

Well, we don't buy a table. It's never even- It shows how different it is than in our day, Katie. I will use it was sort of interesting to go and find it all that. But I mean, I don't think it's ever come up at a single discussion at the bulwark that should we get a table or two? at the White House Constitution, when we started the Weekly Standard in 1995, and JVL was there, a very young JVL,

and we bought tables the first few years, and it was kind of important to establish us as a reputable Washington Magazine. Of course, you have to have a couple of tables, maybe even throw your own little reception, or you certainly get yourself invited to the different receptions and so forth and parties, as you recall.

But it is not what it once was, I think. The glory days were when you got all dressed up, Katie, and came to the White House correspondent's dinner. Oh, yeah, well, they have a picture of me in 1979, my first one, White House Correspondence dinner when I was a desk with the Senate ABC News. I know how embarrassing. I was a little heavy-handed. You're adorable. Yeah. You're adorable. I went to Wintersm's where an educated consumer is your best customer and bought our little dresses. And honestly, it was such a big deal.

I was so excited. I actually saw Jane Polly out in the wild. I was so thrilled. And they were fun for a while. But honestly, I can't imagine the kind of freak show it's going to be this year. You've got this president who trashes the press, who insults reporters on a daily basis, especially female reporters, but really all reporters, who has no respect for the First Amendment, who, you know, started the fake news moniker, which I think has contributed to declining trust in the media. You've got to, I know O's the mentalists who's coming. You know, I've got to know him a little bit. He's a great guy, but I guess Trump was terrified of having a comedian, make fun of him the way remember.

I mean, I'll never forget. I was at the one, was I, I'm trying to remember if I was. 2012, 2011, is that the famous one where Obama. And, and, and apparently was one of the motivating factors for him running for president. But I just, it's just so the incongruity of a room chock-a-block full of journalists. And this guy who hates them and insults them and yet craves their approval, right? It's like, again, that whole psychological weirdness. It is going to be so weird, isn't it?

I mean, I am interested in hearing what Trump says, aren't you? So I, I'm sorry. Can I just rant for a moment? Yes, please. Go for it. So I came to Washington desperate to work at the weekly standard, to work for Bill Crystal. I had grown up, like I was a nerd in seventh and eighth grade reading the New Republic and National Review, reading Chris Buckley novels, the White House mess. And I had this unbelievably romantic vision of Washington.

And I remember getting to go to the first White House Correspondent, and it was amazing. It was magical, absolutely magical. You know, I snuck into the Vanity Fair after party pretending to be Fred Barnes. It was amazing. And the Washington that existed back then really was the Washington of my dreams. Like, everybody basically was on the same side. The conservatives and the liberals were fighting between all the cliches about the 40-yard lines were basically true. That world doesn't exist anymore.

And we are living through an authoritarian attempt. It is categorically different than it was prior to 2016. And I really judge, I try not to, like everybody is, you know, out of living their own lives. I judge any journalist who's going to show up to this thing and pretend that it's just like the old days, that this is all normal and that, you know, oh, we're just joshing around the president. The president's up there doing his things.

You know, at the end of the day, we can all have a, have a bourbon together because we're all on the same side. That's not the case. And anybody who's going to this thing is complicit in normalizing this and downplaying the very real risks that there are for the country and for liberal democracy. And so shame on you. Sorry. I'd be embarrassed. You're puritanical.

No, I hear you. I would be embarrassed. It's going to be so uncomfortable and so bizarre, you know. And with that, have a good time at the Biden's Congress on the stair. Skip the dinner, just go to the parties. Yeah. Yeah, I don't know. The whole thing is, is, yeah, you know, in some ways,

I feel like reporters deserve the good ones, the good ones, to celebrate the work they're doing. But the New York Times doesn't go, right? Because they think it's inappropriate to go. But there are, I don't, I imagine the Atlantic didn't buy a table. I can't imagine Jeffrey Goldberg is going to go to that dinner. Well, as you know, Katie, I mean, there will be people who are there because their bosses told them to be there.

right i mean if the network's by a table and you're the washington if you're the white house for pentecon correspondent for nbc you can't really say i'm not coming in fact you're supposed to show up you're supposed to get a guest from the administration i was in the reagan and bush administrations and i wasn't the most important person but even i got invited as a guest by you know people it was fun as jpil was saying as you were saying uh and meet and mix and mingle with people we didn't know very well and it was social occasion it was getting babysitter for the kids you know get out for an evening with your wife it was nice. It was fun. It was fun. And there were interesting people to talk to, and it was a celebration of the First Amendment, right? They give these awards to journalists and the White House Press Corps.

You know, the, our correspondence association actually does some good work, really some of journalists. But you're right, it's a very different time. And it's, I can't wait to read about it. I don't mind not going, but I can't. It's sort of like the Star Wars. bar, I think. I can't wait to see like all the bizarre stuff that happens here on Saturday night. Do you have a favorite memory from the correspondence dinner from your days, either of you? Katie? I mean, I just remember, I just remember how fun it was just going to all the parties and seeing all the people and seeing Dan Rather and, you know, all these people who I really looked up to and as I mentioned, Jane Pauly and kind of walking by and touching her dress.

Because I was a freak. And, but, you know, it, it, you felt, you felt like you were part of something important, honestly, when you went there. And something good. Yeah. And it was, it just, it was fun. It was fun to get dressed up. It was fun to see sort of, you know, the ink-stained wretches all dressed up in tuxedos.

You know, as Mike Allen, I think coined the phrase, the nerd prom. You know, it was just like a time where we felt like, like a part of a community that was doing good work and that also wanted to have fun and maybe celebrate itself a little bit. I don't know. And I just remember seeing George W. Bush like at a party and being like, hey, it's just so weird, right? Yeah. It's not, it doesn't. It's not, this is not our Washington anymore and it's not our politics anymore, honestly. And maybe it'll get back to it, you know. But five years or now, we can all go and enjoy. And it was also fun, by the way, to see all the celebrities, because for a while there, Bill, right? They were all sorts of celebrities.

Yeah, that began in 87, 88, so then you got the movie stars and the others, and that was always. I remember the William sisters were there one year, you know, or like the early in the American Idol craze. They were, you know, a bunch of people who had been recently voted off from American Idol. The cast of the West Wing was there one year. Yeah, Julia Louis Dreyfus, I think, one year.

Heidi Klum. Christy, Brinkley. I met Chris. I was with Matt Laybash and I met Christy Brinkley one year and that was a... Was it everything you dreamed it would be in more? You know, it was and yet my

persistent memory is being unable to believe the size of her head. Christy Brinkley is a large headed person in a way that is it was like small animals were trapped in orbit around her head. It was just she could blot out the

She's her hair because she is beautiful. I mean, she's insane. She's so beautiful. I saw her at a city harvest event last night. So she's very fresh in my mind. She's very tall and very beautiful. She's so tall. Oh, my God.

So tall and so big. I don't mean like she didn't like, I don't mean that she looked like with her head. But the combination of the hair and the head and the smile, because also she had her mouth is like too big and she has too many teeth. Like the miles. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

It was weird. I think it's time here, you know. Okay. Well, you know what? Let's put your meeting with Matt Laybash. Thank you for indulging me. Thank you for answering all my questions. This was really fun.

I'll see you guys later. I can't wait to dish with you the morning after. Okay, good. Thanks, thanks, Katie. All right. See you guys. Bye. Take care.